The first floating turbine wind farm is under construction. Of course, the turbines must be anchored in deep water, and the power cables to shore must be much longer. However the power produced is greater than in offshore waters, the adverse environmental effects are reduced versus the concrete pads used in the shallows, and the turbines are not visible from shore.Photo: Roar Lindefjeld/Woldcam/StatoilNorwegian oil and gas giant Statoil positions 6-megawatt turbines off the coast of Scotland for the world's first floating wind farm.

KaiserJeep wrote:The first floating turbine wind farm is under construction. Of course, the turbines must be anchored in deep water, and the power cables to shore must be much longer. However the power produced is greater than in offshore waters, the adverse environmental effects are reduced versus the concrete pads used in the shallows, and the turbines are not visible from shore.

Wow, this seems like fantastic news. The quote from the first article about this definitely being economic in the near term is also great to hear.

Sounds like a win-win to me. And a sea anchor to prevent drift sounds cheaper than maintaining a permanent fixture embedded in bedrock. I keep being amazed by the things that modern technology can do in a cost effective way -- things I hadn't even considered remotely practical, or even possible in some cases.

The only people who should object are those who profit from burning as much coal and oil as possible, it seems to me.

The engineering accomplishments associated with these floating turbines are truly breathtaking. However, as one who has more than passing familiarity with industrial/commercial activities in marine environments, I would most emphatically declare the economic aspects of ALL offshore wind projects are somewhat tenuous.The Europeans have made startling progress in the development and implementation of these offshore whirleys, but - as the Australian government is poised to do with renewables - let them operate sans subsidies and grid access priority if they are as inexpensive as their advocates so loudly proclaim.

The US is FAR different than the European theater for many reasons, foremost amongst them the near unfathomable amount of natgas to fuel uber- efficient CCGT plants so as to provide the cheapest electricity around.

Don't believe it?

Read up on the Virginia offshore program (2 whirleys placed 20 miles offshore for $300 million. The lowest market offer to build was actually $420 million, but DONG stepped in to subsidize the difference).Check out Maryland's travails now that they may need to place their 2 proposed farms 20+ miles offshore.New York was breathless with the ongoing efforts to place some whirleys off Long Island, smack atop some of the most productive fishing grounds in the Atlantic. Whoops.Massachusetts is, from a regulatory perspective, the most aggressive in striving to implement offshore whirleys.Logistics - always the bugaboo to professionals - is proving as daunting as all the other challenges to easy build out.

Who cares, KJ?We have long ago disconnected from any sane, mutually agreed opon state of facts/reality so we can most effectively chart our communal futures together.We inhabit the fuck you, I'm right, my way or the highway universe in which lawyers, sleazebags, greedy-yet-cunning pieces of shit determine more often than not, what will be.

Hywind is an impressive achievement.Won't be heading to the USA anytime soon - if ever.